Messages - florida357

I would say it is very unsuprising that an "African American" got the nomination.

Curiously, this conversation is devoid of grades. It might be a safe assumption that a person at the top of there class at Yale would be selected over a person in the bottom of there class at Harvard. Also curious, Obama won't release his grades. Remember, he was elected to the Editor of Law Review.

I went to a similarly ranked school and was in a similar position. At my school, the OCI employers specified class ranks which could apply. I was excluded from about 98% of interviews because I wasn't in the top third.

I didn't find good employment my first summer, so I worked for free and got some good experience. My second summer I tried extremely hard to get an internship, and it looked like it was going to be unsuccessful, I actually got into the summer before something kind of fell into my lap. I got my first real job by my own efforts, i.e. not by what I would consider luck, in the fall of my third year. The day before my last law school exam I secured another job, and I am happily employed and making a good salary.

Moral of the story being that nothing is guaranteed, but if you always make the best of the situation chances are you will come out on top in the end.

I understand that everyone here advising me to just pay it is looking out for my best interests. It probably would be cheaper in the end just to pay it.

However, I am pretty disturbed that this is the system he have. If I am not under any contractual or other legal obligation to pay someone, they shouldn't be able to touch me. They especially shouldn't be able to touch without proferring a shred of documentation, which seems to be what they have done. It ought to be just as illegal as taking my wallet and holding it for $80 ransom. Sure, my credit cards are in there and its in my best interest just to pay it, but it is a freakin crime!

Needless to say, this is my first exposure to the system. I have always paid all my bills on time, etc. Its just a bit shocking that this can happen without a single ounce of documentation.

To the OP, it seems as if you have at least a decent cause of action, though I don't know what theory off the top of my head. Bad faith business practices? Possibly even fraud.

Those may be plausible causes of action. Interestingly, the attorneys I spoke with all believed that this was essentially a breach of contract, even though the student handbook states that the student handbook is NOT a contract. I'm going to play this game on their terms for the summer by taking 2 classes that I already took and passed. If I get screwed on this, someone else is going to feel my pain. Thanks for the comment.

The idea that control of the population's access to guns is beneficially linked to violent crime is one of the biggest political frauds of our lifetime.

After trillions of dollars and manhours spent, the government has absolutely no control over the possession or easy flow of illegal narcotics. Assume for a moment that a ban on guns and the ensuing war on guns would be equally successful, this means that at least 50% of highschool students would have easy access to guns. Career criminals would have no problem obtaining them.

In fact, this is what we see in places that have instituted strict gun control: total violent crime increases. This includes at least DC, Chicago, England, and Australia.

It is simply a fraud perpetrated by ultra-liberals and peacenik idealists. Notably, over 40,000 people die every year as a result of DUI, yet none of you would support a ban on alcohol. Guns are related to only 30,000 deaths per year; less than 15,000 if you exclude suicide. Even if you make the extremely egregious assumptions that criminals will become law abiding without access to guns, that they will in fact not have access to guns, that suicidal people will not jump off buildings or use simple and painless household cleaners as they do in Japan, there is still absolutely no reason to pursue a ban on guns before a ban on alcohol.

If Amex told them to piss off, it seems I'd be in the same situation I am now. They can't collect physically, they can't collect legally, so they sent it to a collection agency in bad faith simply to harass and spite me.

Here is a question: can the COLLECTION AGENCY ALONE increase the amount? In other words, gold's isn't still charging me, and the collection agency is telling me that the debt will go up if I don't pay it. It doesn't seem to me that they can just unilaterally up the amount.